McCain Campaign Sinks Further into Depravity
How low can they go? Well, if this new ad is any indication, quite a bit further. It is yet another in the train of “lighthearted” ads that purportedly poke fun at Obama’s so-called celebrity status. This is seemingly driven by a deep psychological trauma on the part of the once-dashing political maverick, adored by the media, a household name who appeared in manifold movies and other outlets of popular culture. The king of celebrity politicians has been dethroned, and he is not at all happy about it. As he lashes out, these ads have become a sign of how bankrupt his campaign has become.
I always knew McCain would not seriously fight on the issues. (Abortion? Yeah right). Since the early 1990s, while the Democrats have run on detailed policy platforms, Republicans huffed and strutted about their superior characters, in the process casting aspersions on the character and good name of their opponents, often aided and abetted by a media that hates boring policy debates and delights in this kind of fanciful fluff. And after the tragedy of the last 8 years, a tragedy that more than anything else explains the rise of the Obama phenomenon, McCain has embraced this tactic with a vengeance. In the process, his campaign is rapidly turning into one of the low marks in American policy history, a perfect storm of vacuousness, dishonesty, and appeal to prejudice.
Let’s see the latest ad through these lens. First off, the point about Obama pledging to increase taxes on those making $42,000 a year is simply a lie. I guess the bar for truth has been lowered over the past eight years, with a creeping nihilism that allows politicians to simply tell lies and get away with it as the media has simply abrogated its watchdog responsibilities. And anyway, the media would need to actually do some real research to point this out– and why talk about boring tax policy when we can talk about Paris Hilton instead? You have to hand it to them, the Republicans know how the media think, and exploit it brilliantly.
The ad ends with the phrase “Hot Chicks Dig Obama”. I’m not joking. When I suggested in the past that the McCain campaign was appealing to racism by showing a charismatic black man with ultra-blond starlets like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears (these particular celebrities), I was criticized. The mainstream media and commentariat also tut-tutted at such an unseemly suggestion. To which I respond: wake up. We can now read in black and white the kind of advice Mark Penn was offering Hillary Clinton, telling her to paint her opponent as the un-American other, the man who was simply too different from the mainstream to garner public support. Maybe in 2050 he will be electable, sneered Penn. Let me simply ask this: can you imagine what the Mark Penns of the McCain campaign, the people who trained under Lee Atwater and Karl Rove (including Karl Rove himself) are advising? After all, Penn is a rank amateur next to these people.
I think we can get a flavor of what they are saying from these ads. Paris Hilton. Britney Spears. Hot Chicks Dig Obama. Is there any greater lingering racism in America than the fear of sexual conquest of white women by black men? This taps into the deepest pool of racism in this country. I simply cannot believe this is all a big coincidence, a wild overreaction. For there is precedent. In the one close Senate race in 2006 that the Democrats lost, the Republican Bob Corker beat the Democrat Harold Ford in Tennessee. He did so on the back of a highly controversial ad. The ad attacks Ford for having a playboy image, and ends with a young blond woman looking into the camera, winking, and saying “Harold, Call Me.” Funnily enough, Corker himself called for the ad to be pulled, deeming it distasteful. It was not, and Corker won, an outlier in that electoral season. The Republican message gurus paid attention.
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama is anything but a devoted family. Still, planting insinuations that “hot chicks dig him” can have the same effect. Do I personally believe John McCain is racist? No, I do not. But I do believe he is appealing to the worst instincts in people, tapping into the residue of racism, one of the great evils in American history, to score political points. And I would point out that racism is intrinsically evil, and can never be supported, flirted with, or exploited.
Comments are closed.
McCain and his crazy advisers are also desperate to ramp up the current conflict between Russia and Georgia into a new cold war — that’s why the administration armed and encouraged the Georgians in the first place.
I definitely see what you mean about contrasting blonde/white beautiful celebrities with Obama a handsome black man. Absolutely despicable. Those kinds of fears are prevalent for both blacks and whites.
I hate to admit it but it is very clever of the republicans. They have found that they do not even have to run on their own issues but play on people’s anxieties and fears psychologically (no matter how irrational those fears are).
America the beautiful! Best country on earth! The hope of the world!
Not funny. Just stupid.
I didn’t care for this ad; not creative or funny at all.
But this:
Hot Chicks Dig Obama. Is there any greater lingering racism in America than the fear of sexual conquest of white women by black men?
In older days, the racist fear that led to lynchings was not praising a black guy for being popular with “hot chicks,” but the fear that a black guy would rape a white woman. I happen to think there’s a vast difference between those two scenarios, but perhaps you disagree.
And in answer to your question: absolutely yes. There are many real-world examples of racism that are “greater” than the fear you mention, from job discrimination to housing discrimination to discrimination in buying cars. I’ve lived most of my life in the South, and I’ve never heard anyone breathe a hint of the fear that you mention — except for right now, of course. Real interracial couples are commonplace in the media — from Clarence Thomas to Kobe Bryant to many other celebrities — and I’ve never heard anybody say a negative word about them.
Poor Obama. You would think that he would stop exploiting and using for his own gain the Messiah complex that the media has bestowed upon him….
Isn’t “Hot Chicks Dig Obama” a pro-Obama thing?
A 71 year old man having reduced himself to a jealous middle school student….
Depravity? Goodness over reacting a tad
No the ads are not racist.
I must say McCain’s ads are generating discussion which is a part of it. I suspect that if MCCain has a series of serious hard hitting policy ads people would yawn and we would not have yet another review at VOX NOVA .
It is August for goodness sakes and people are tuned into the Olympics and taking a break. McCain has got some money he has got to spend before the convention and so far it has been effective.
McCain is having a ton of TOWN hall meeting that are also on the news where he is discussing issues. I suppose we can that posts on that
On Saturday McCain and Obama will be together (we shall see how many people tune in)
Lot os time in theis marathon yet
“I definitely see what you mean about contrasting blonde/white beautiful celebrities with Obama a handsome black man. Absolutely despicable. Those kinds of fears are prevalent for both blacks and whites.
I hate to admit it but it is very clever of the republicans. They have found that they do not even have to run on their own issues but play on people’s anxieties and fears psychologically (no matter how irrational those fears are).”
How come the over ones that seem to make this connection are more selfed ID Liberals and Progressives . Most of my redneck friends don’t seem to have found the Obama is a threat to our women theme that so many at Slate and the New York Times declare there is
This ad (and, I believe, the others) are web only ads. They aren’t running in senior citizens homes in Alabama, but on YouTube. That means that the people viewing the ads are going to be disproportionately young and well educated. I would submit that, if you think that demographic is going to react to pictures of white women praising Obama like a group of 1950′s era segregationists, then you don’t have your finger on the pulse of the nation.
Also, it turns out (as I suspected) that “Hot Chicks Dig Obama” is a creation of Obama supporters, not the McCain people.
“He’s on the level of…oh…Bono, for me.” Ha! Now that is priceless.
“McCain and his crazy advisers are also desperate to ramp up the current conflict between Russia and Georgia into a new cold war — that’s why the administration armed and encouraged the Georgians in the first place.”
Hmmm
Alkon,
Perhaps you can show me the glarring difference between McCain’s and Obama statements on this issue
“Also, it turns out (as I suspected) that “Hot Chicks Dig Obama” is a creation of Obama supporters, not the McCain people.”
Blackadderiv
I am shocked!!!!! :)
Whatever the value of these ads, I am eager for the debates to begin…perhaps then McCain will have to not only engage Obama on the issues, but respond to Obama’s actual positions.
Policraticus,
I lost faith in political campaigns ever being about the issues in 2004, when the main campaign issue seemed to be what the candidates had been doing during the early 1970s. I wouldn’t hold out much hope for the debates either. True, they probably will feature some discussion of issues, albeit in 90 second bites. But if history is any guide, the winner of the debate will be determined not by any substance, but by which candidate got off the best zinger or other irrelevances.
BA – Yep. The chattering class treat elections as if they are junior-high-school popularity contests: “And then Obama was like, ‘I’ll MAKE you admit global warming!’ and then McCain was all, ‘Nuh UH!!!’ ” and so on, ad (literally) nauseum.
Ed Morrow, come back. We need you.
“And then Obama was like, ‘I’ll MAKE you admit global warming!’ and then McCain was all, ‘Nuh UH!!!’ ”
Oh, snap!
“Fear” of women being ‘conquered’ by another race’s men is a common phenomenon, in no way limited to whites.
As far as Obama goes, his own hype is coming back to bite him. Minion’s dead-serious grandstanding is way over the top.
As I’ve been saying for months, Obama is a candidate who was marketed like a pop star, not a politician. That he now is ridiculed like a boy band is only befitting. The Obama campaign is a sickly mix of televangelism and teenie pop star. Obama is Hannah Montana. Now it is shown that he’s really just Miley Cyrus.
I remember the Obama campaign workers being trained to AVOID talking about issues but rather talk about how they ‘came to Obama’. Obama, your own personal Jesus. It is marketing genius – combine religion and traditional pop stardom.
Absolutely, MM!
And you know what?
What the Obama campaign should do is this…immediately release an ad highlighting Obama’s substantive accomplishments during the time he’s served as a United States Senator.
Right?
Anyone?
“Tim Says:
August 12, 2008 at 11:06 pm
And you know what?
What the Obama campaign should do is this…immediately release an ad highlighting Obama’s substantive accomplishments during the time he’s served as a United States Senator.”
Now that’s funny.
*crickets*
*crickets*
Crickets? In the middle of the night? Who woulda thought…
“And I would point out that racism is intrinsically evil, and can never be supported, flirted with, or exploited.”
But that’s exactly what you’re doing! You’re exploiting it in your vain attempt to recruit voters for Obama. No reasonable person thinks the ad was racist. So can we say that you are guilty of an intrinsically evil act?
Well its a fair way into the morning now. Anyone want to list Obama’s accomplishments in the Senate. State or Federal will be fine.
I’ll tell you one. In 2003, Obama fought against an attempt to pass legislation for the state of Illinois that protected infants born alive after and attempted abortion.
“Douglas Johnson, NRLC spokesman, explains: “Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion.”
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/08/barack-obama-supports-murder-of-newborn.html
Phillip, you are completely and utterly and abolsutely missing the point. The point is that McCain is not running ads about this, or any other substantive policy matter. He’s running ads based on lies and personal character attacks, with a “nudge-nudge-wink-wink” aproach to racsim.
A few months ago, John Judis wrote an excellent article in TNR about the effects of racist messages in American politics, appealing to cutting edge psychological literature:
———————–
“In 2001, Princeton political scientist Tali Mendelberg summarized this research in a pathbreaking book, The Race Card….Their findings suggest that racism remains deeply embedded within the psyche of the American electorate–so deep that many voters may not even be aware of their own feelings on the subject.”
“In elections over the last three decades, Republican politicians have repeatedly used ads, push polls, and surrogates to appeal to white voters’ racial fears and resentments. These ranged from George H.W. Bush’s Willie Horton ad in 1988 to the Republican National Committee’s infamous “Harold, call me” ad in the 2006 Tennessee Senate race between Republican Bob Corker and African American Harold Ford, which appealed to long-standing fears about black sexuality.”
“In The Race Card, Mendelberg argues that political ads can indeed awaken underlying racial stereotypes and attitudes, just like a black face flashing subliminally on a screen….Mendelberg’s most controversial claim is that these ads work best when the appeal is implicit. If the appeal is explicit, she argues–that is, if politicians actually say that blacks are undeserving–then they lose support because they have violated the norm against racism. Although voters will respond unconsciously to an implicit appeal that they don’t perceive as racist, they will recoil for reasons of conscience or social disapproval to an appeal that either is, or is seen as, racist.”
“First, one has to distinguish between kinds of explicit messages. If a message obviously violates norms against old-fashioned, pre-civil rights racism–as Lott’s did–then it is likely to backfire; but if it leaves any room for disagreement about whether it is racist, then it may not. Second, a lot depends on which voters candidates are appealing to. For example, researchers have shown that white women are more likely than white men to react negatively to racist appeals. George Allen learned this lesson in his 2006 Senate race when he lost support among female voters in northern Virginia after uttering a racial slur against an Indian-American.
——————————–
If you don’t think McCain is exploiting this psychology (the man who uses the word “gook” in public), you are deluding yourself.
Well, if THIS is true:
”…the people viewing the ads are going to be disproportionately young and well educated”…
I certainly hope, as an Obama supporter, that McCain CONTINUES to run such ads, because Obama’s winning quotient has gone UP in the last day or two—perhaps due to this kind of advertising:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
I thought DOLE was a poor Republican choice, but the “old white-haired dude” has to be the biggest joke they’ve ever offered the country.
He doesn’t know how to campaign for the office of the Presidency—thank God!
“This is seemingly driven by a deep psychological trauma on the part of the once-dashing political maverick, adored by the media, a household name who appeared in manifold movies and other outlets of popular culture. The king of celebrity politicians has been dethroned, and he is not at all happy about it. As he lashes out, these ads have become a sign of how bankrupt his campaign has become.”
And this claims to be a serious Catholic blog?
This ad is great in one sense: it forces the radical left (like MM) to show their total ideological bankruptcy.
In the face of a funny ad (and a funny series of ads), the radical left is so ideologically bankrupt and so vested in fear-mongering and race baiting that they are only able to cry, “RACISM!” It seems anything that dareth to mocketh thy Most Holy Messiah and Redeemer Obama is racist.
Main stream Americans (read: not radical leftists) hear the fear-mongering and race baiting and recognize it as total foolishness, and in turn are pushed away from radical leftists hypocrites like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres, Louis Farakan, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Fr. Pfleger, Al Sharpton, and Barack Obama. Let me guess, I’m racist because I didn’t list enough whites.
The only racism taking place here, MM, is from you.
So, if “main stream” (sic.) “America” “recognise” Obama’s campaign as “total foolishness,” why aren’t they telling that to the pollsters?
You’re in a state of denial–but please stay that way, because if THIS is the way McCain intends to campaign for the Presidency until election day, the Democrats ARE going to win, and put neo-fascist Republicanism onto the dumpster!
MM,
I was merely responding to the question of what Obama’s accomplishments are. Given that Obama’s rhetoric is one of “change” it is reasonable to ask what “change” he has accomplished while having senatorial power. Otherwise, pointing out that much of his popularity is equal to that of Spears or Hilton is an appropriate counter-rhetoric.
1) I did not reference the Obama Campaign as total foolishness, I referenced fear-mongering and race baiting from the radical left.
2) The fascists had an organized campaign to destroy valuable human life.
The Republicans have no such organized campaign.
The Democrats do.
Who is properly called neo-fascist?
It’s the only way the old guy can win. He must destroy Obama. We have learned in the last few months that the maverick ain’t nothing but a wolf in sheeps clothing. It’s all an act and always has been. What rove/bush did to Mccain in 2000 is only what McCain never had the chance to do to them first. He’s hired all the gutter dogs to run his campaign including advisors of Don. Rummy for God’s sake. He has no honor and no ethics. He’s crazy as a loon.
Hey, well into the afternoon and nobody has yet posted what Obama’s accomplishments as senator are. Hmmm.
Philip
No one posted your accomplishments here, either. Hmm.
Just doing a google search (you could have done this, but we know your point is rhetorical, not out of real interest for information), you could find this answer to your questions:
“During his eight years in the Illinois state Senate, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. Obama also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama enlisted the support of law enforcement officials to draft legislation requiring the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.”
A different page has it: “A law requiring confessions made to the police to be videotaped. This was initially opposed by, well, everyone, but Obama prevailed and it passed the Senate by 35-0.
He passed Illinois’ first earned income tax credit
He passed the state’s first campaign finance reform law in 25 years, making Illinois one of the “best in the nation” on campaign reform, according to the Washington Post. ”
Another says:”Worked with republican senator Lugar to expand and author
program to locate & dismantle stray Russian WMD’s left over
from the cold war after the disbanding of the USSR
Jan. 2007, major ethics/lobbying reform bill, w/ Russ Feingold
insisted tougher measures banning lobbyist gifts/ meals/ jets,
disclosure of earmark & contribution bundling to candidates or
committees; restricts retiring Congress from going into lobbying”
See what you could find if you were actually interested?
Actually, Phillip, the truly ironic thing is that John McCain is now running as fast as possible away from his “accomplishments” in the Senate…
I am interested. Just not in doing the work for those who support Obama should be doing. Perhaps Henry you could put these bills in a new post on Vox Nova. Then we could all discuss the merits and defects of these bills. Perhaps even posting these bills we could then discuss the possible effect this might have on his choices as President. One could also note in such a post Obama’s support and sponsoring of legislation that has garnered for him 100% rating from NARAL in both the Illinois and national Senates. Additionally one could look at his oppostion to the Defense of Marriage Ammendement and discuss that. That if one was really interested. Particularly for those who cry racism (now there’s a hmmm for rhetoric.)
Philip
You are not interested; you are only interested in rhetorical battles. You also fail to notice what has consistently been said here: Vox Nova has no official position as to who you should vote for; some have said they would vote for Obama, but others have said they would not. I have said I do not support Obama. But one thing which should be done in all political discussions: keep it honest, and not make false impressions (oh, he’s done nothing!?!).
No one posted your accomplishments here, either. Hmm.
Uncalled for and rude.
As for Obama’s accomplishments, it’s true that he sponsored a number of important bills while in his last year in the Illinois legislature. It’s also true that he was only added as the sponsor of the bills by the Democratic Majority Leader, Emil Jones, Jr., to help his Senate campaign:
Thanks BA, I was looking for that info but couldn’t find it on Google. You see sometimes truth just isn’t what one finds there. Often they lead to false impressions that are useful for rhetoric.
And by the way Henry, I’d be happy to discuss some of my accomplishments over a beer with you. The best right now is my wife and child but that’s not the end of it.
If it is rude to say “No one posted X’s accomplishments in here. Hmm,” then I will agree with you, I was rude BA. But so was Philip. It is then rude to point me out alone, and not point this out to him. But if Philip was not, then that rule is not valid. And therefore it is rude for you to point this out to me, because you are trying to indicate something about me which is not true.
Let me now be deliberately rude. WAAAHHHH.
Now that we got that out, perhaps Henry you could address BA’s link that says perhaps many of Obama’s accomplishments were not the result of his own work.
Philip
All work in the senate is via cooperation and not done merely by an individual. That’s the nature of the beast.
I think the link suggests it was more than cooperation that got Obama on these bills. But enough for tonight. For any rudeness I may have given I apologize. Good night all.
If it is rude to say “No one posted X’s accomplishments in here. Hmm,” then I will agree with you, I was rude BA. But so was Philip.
Obama is the guy running for President, if you haven’t noticed. Thus, asking for a list of his accomplishments is relevant to determining what one thinks of his capabilities and passions. Philip isn’t running for President, however, and therefore to ask for his accomplishments is irrelevant and childish.
It has always been remarked, throughout the history of the U.S., that some of the previously most unaccomplished people were some of the best Presidents. Harry Truman, for instance, was NOT an accomplished legislator and neither was John Kennedy, whereas George H.W. Bush, whose record as President was spotty, had done much in the Executive branch before becoming President. Lincoln certainly was a great risk, as was pointed out when he ran for the office.
Another thing that has been much noted about previous Presidents is that their governing style is often reflected in the way they have campaigned for the office. Directing a Presidential campaign is is an executive function. If Obama’s campaign against Hillary Clinton–involving very shrewd decisions regarding timing, harboring of resources, managing press releases, etc.–is any sign of how effective he’d be as a chief executive, I’ll take him over McCain easily.
Another very important aspect of the office involves the use of the “bully pulpit” to inspire the masses to be willing to accept change when change is needed. Not only is Obama’s rhetoric inspiring and uplifiting, it’s also truthful, objective and generally fair and generous-spirited regarding his ideological opponents: thus far, he has NOT gone nearly so far into the gutter as his Republican opponents, and the American people, who are tired of the tactics of Atwater and Rove, are noticing: it’s probably a good reason for his consistent majorities in the polling.
I also regret Obama’s positions on abortion and capital punishment (the latter of which, I’ve noticed, doesn’t seem to exercise the right-wing Catholics on these threads at all); however, from the standpoints of war, foreign policy, health care reform and fiscal responsibility and transparency, he’s obviously the better candidate. He’s also at a much more advantaged stage of life to be able to withstand the rigours of the office. McCain often seems to be falling apart, mentally and physically.
On top of everything else, the vast “experience” of a large number of members of the present administration seems to have availed nothing for your country, and, indeed, in many instances, to have actually clouded their judgment and rendedered them LESS objective and shrewd in sizing up situations and adversaries; they’ve continuously opted to re-fight old campaigns and employ worn-out, disproved tactics in a world of entirely different challenges. The Bush Administration, whose policies McCain has embraced (watch him analyze the Georgia-Russia situation as if it’s Vietnam all over again, and as if Europe and Europe’s fuel supplies in Russia aren’t the major consideration) don’t seem to know the first thing about “fourth-generation war” and the importance in it of “soft war.”
In terms of sizing up “risks” for the United States in choosing between McCain and Obama, I’d say that choosing McCain is taking a risk that the failed strategies of the past will finally prove successful. I believe it was Einstein who said that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I don’t the American people are mad enough to elect John McCain: Obama WILL be your President by November–by a slight edge in the popular vote, because of the huge cultural difference between the “red” and the “blue” states, but by a large margin in the electoral college, which is what the polling data are indicating. Then, the question for you “conservatives” (who actually aren’t “conservatives” by the traditional, European standards of “conservatism”)will be, will you put aside your differences, for the sake of your country, and cooperate with a brilliant centre-left politician to devise solutions for the PLANET’S most pressing problems. If you continue to allow the “culture wars” of the United States to influence the policy-making that effects the whole world’s population, we’re all doomed.
I know that people like me are supposed to try to be fair…and balanced. (The Fox mockery of our sappy professional standards seems more brutally appropriate with each passing year.) In the past, I would achieve a semblance–or an illusion–of balance by criticizing Democrats for not responding effectively when right-wing sludge merchants poisoned our national elections with their filth and lies….But there is no excuse for what the McCain campaign is doing on the “putting America first” front. There is no way to balance it, or explain it other than as evidence of a severe character defect on the part of the candidate who allows it to be used.
This election has to be about how to recover from the damage – militarily, economically, environmentally, diplomatically and culturally – that the Bush administration has wrought:
It cannot be about a single issue like abortion—not if you have any degree of patriotism regarding the United States of America, your country, which is in trouble.
digby:
Truman=dropped atomic bomb
JFK = brought us to the brink of war with the USSR.
Not exactly strong arguments for you case.
This ad sucks. One mention of a policy position and about thirty desperate complaints that Obama is the more popular kid in school. Honest to God: I’m moving to Canada.
Pax Christi,
X-Cathedra, I DID already move to Germany.
Honest to God: I’m moving to Canada.
Toronto is nice.